Boards

I'm doing a project on how various methods of recording, mixing and production affect a bands sound.

Anyone got any producers they particularly admire, if so why?
Anyone think any bands have got a lot better when they changed producer?
How much impact do you think production has on songwriting?
any thoughts would be appreciated....

Anyone got any producers they particularly admire, if so why?
steve albini. he gets an individual sound without in anyway imposing on the bands sound: he doesnt add anything, but just has characteristic sounds.

Anyone think any bands have got a lot better when they changed producer?
radiohead when they moved to godrich. maybe it was just their attitudes changed, but godrich reflected this.

How much impact do you think production has on songwriting?
further to traynors "thoughts", its perfectly possible that a band will write differently knowing they will owrk with a different producer.
relatedly, producers often help out with arrangements.

producers regularly help with arrangment of parts and sounds used during the song.
If you hear an acoustic demo of a song by an artist, then hear the fully recorded version there can be a whole variety of differences, sonically, structually.....etc
thanks...

I don't know about Radiohead. I met a bloke who claimed John Leckie was the reason The Bends was so much tighter and more interesting than Pablo Honey - that it was what he said to bands and how he told them to play their music that was the reason people hired him.

I don't know whether that's true, but I'm not convinced Nigel Godrich is that important to Radiohead's sound, since they are also listed as producers. He has a certain 'vagueness' to his sound, but when Travis called him in all they ended up with was a terribly dull album.

Since I've never cut a record myself this is guesswork. But I think the best analogy is that of a movie director. He wears a baseball cap and generally does a lot of pointing and knob twiddlin' stuff. Probably isn't half as loaded as the band.

Often a band will choose a producer well versed with a style they're going for. The Dandy Warhols wished to go from drug hazy guitars to electronica and employed DD's Nick Rhodes for the job (as horrendous as this turned out to be.)

Other examples. David Bowie recorded John, I'm Only Dancing twice within a year (and then again) with the same band. The Ziggy Stardust version is muddy and the Aladdin Sane version has a lot more punch. Hard to say whether it was the band who recorded it differently or what, but the end result was the same song had different production values.

And whoever said Bowie fucked up the production on Raw Power is wrong. A commonly held belief, it's only in retrospect, after Iggy "fixed" it, do we see the original version/mix was much better.

I started a thread on this a while ago. Of course producers affect a bands sound, as does the quality of the studio and the equipment used in the studio and of course the songs, the talent of the band etc etc.

If I pay good money (and NOT download) for a cd, I expect the production to be absolutely top quality, if it is not, it ruins my enjoyment of the band. Dunno whether any of you are incubus fans, but listen to the difference in production quality between Morning View and A crow left of the murder. The former was done in a makeshift studio in a mansion house, the latter in a proper studio, no prizes for guessing which sounds best.

Then you have Yourcodenameis:milo - Rapt Dept, the 3 other songs on the single were produced by the band themselves, absolute utter shite (production wise) in my opinion.

Assuming you've bought the cd, you've paid for the production as much as the music itself so it helps if it is done well. It's like if you get home, put a cd on, then put your amp on pops, stadium or rock eq setting. You've paid for the production, so leave the eq flat so you can listen to it as the producer intended. Also, you'll never be able to hear how a producer affects sound if you always listen to music through earphones.

My favourite producer is David Bottrill, see Peter Gabriel - Passion, Tool - Aenema, Lateralus, Mudvayne - The end of all things to come, and I also believe he did some work with Muse at some point too.

I hope he is doing Tool's new album too, no-one makes the drums sound like he does

production isn't everything, and top quality production can have an adverse affect on a bands sound.
examples would be weezer - green and morrissey - you are the quarry. other times production just completely fucks a group of songs, but then you have to ask yourself whether the artist isn't responsible due to arrangements. examples morrissey - kill uncle (awful recorded versions of great live songs) and any 80s albums by older 60s/70s artists, like any 80s dylan or neil young (landing on water is the best/worst example). bad synths have been the death of many a good song.
'bad' production can often be fantastic, best example would be elliott smith's either/or. some people obviously like 'bad' production, or there wouldn't be a whole genre based around using it (lo-fi if i'm not making myself too clear.)

I fail to see how top quality production can have an adverse effect on the bands sound. If you are a shit band good production will show you up, but then it can also be used to mask the shitness of a band.

I have never been a fan of lo-fi, i used to be in a band when once we've recorded everything really well, instead of using modern techniques, the producer would just dirty it up by running it through an old reel to reel. I don't know why, maybe some people just don't like things to sound clear.

But then, I'm not really a fan of lo-fi bands

I suppose it depends on the type of music you make. I personally cannot stand it if something is recorded lo-fi, hell, I can do that on a four track with a space echo.

Jamie's certainly right about fucking 80s production. Jesus... Duran Duran might have been a half-decent band without Nick Rhodes anywhere near them... Well I mean they'd *STILL* have been Duran Duran unfortunately but there are degrees.

Top quality production can be just annoying. You really want to hear a band and all you hear is every frequency of a song being filled to the point where you can't actually enjoy what was originally written.

Objection to this is not the love of 'Lo-Fi'. Have a listen to albums that Albini has done: Shellac's At Action Park, Mclusky's Do Dallas and Nirvana's In Utero. He's obviously a big example but many others can get a naturalistic sound from a band without making you want to just kill the producer, Slint's Spiderland has great light production.

I think its about character, texture and individuality. Firstly, if you record something to be "state of the art" it will generally date very quickly - listen to Michael Jackson's "Bad" for a good demonstration of this.

Secondly, what is "top quality production"? Is it using the best technology available? Surely if your sound is defined solely by the available technology, you're missing an opportunity to express yourself artistically?

a good point but I think that only applied to the 80's. Big simmons snare drums and toms and raspy synths always did sound utter wank and always will

I'm trying to think of an example where i don't mind the production being a bit, shall we say, thin.....

No can't think of any.

Oh and in my opinion, top quality production is when you don't notice it as it should be the music that takes the forefront. It's not about using the latest technology, it's about giving the music it's own space in which to breathe.

It can make a huge difference using the right engineer and producer. For example we put both televise and air formation in the studio with pat collier and jessica corcoran because of their excellent work on early swervedriver, adorable etc. And sure enough, they were able to bring out the live guitar sounds of the bands with relative ease where previous producers had struggled somewhat.

Im a big fan of Alan Moulder - the sound he managed to create on alot of the creation bands and curve etc was incredible.